Saving Mothers and Children in Humanitarian Crises
Top Ten Worst Countries to be a Mother: Somalia, DR Congo, Niger, Mali, Guinea-Bissau, Central African Republic, Sierra Leone, Nigeria, Chad, Côte d'Ivoire
Save the Children - State of the World's Mothers 2014:
Motherhood is the toughest job in the world. With long hours, constant demands and no time off, caring for our children is an all-consuming task. But for women living in crisis, the challenges of being a mother are greater – and the stakes are so much higher.
In humanitarian emergencies, when basic health services and livelihoods are disrupted, if not totally destroyed, mothers may find it impossible to adequately feed and support their families. They and their children also become more vulnerable to the risks of exploitation, sexual abuse and physical danger. So the tragedy of the crisis itself is compounded by fear and uncertainty, making mothers feel helpless.
More than 60 million women and children are in need of humanitarian assistance this year. Over half of maternal and child deaths worldwide occur in crisis-affected places; still the majority of these deaths are preventable. In this report, Save the Children examines the causes of maternal and child deaths in crisis settings, and suggests urgent actions needed to support mothers who are raising the world's future generations under some of the most difficult and horrific circumstances imaginable.
Each day, an estimated 800 mothers and 18,000 young children die from largely preventable causes. Over half of these maternal and under-5 deaths take place in fragile settings,1 which are at high risk of conflict and are particularly vulnerable to the effects of natural disasters.
Download the full report <>here . . . .
Greenwood (Automatic Deportation: Order of Events) 
The appealable decision that s 32(5) of the UK Borders Act 2007 applies is not invalid by reason of being dated after the deportation order to which it relates.
In an appeal against automatic deportation there is no appeal against a decision to deport or against the order to deport, but only against the decision that s 32(5) applies.
If the First-tier Tribunal gives directions under s 86 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 they should be clear, so that the person affected knows whether to challenge them and everybody can tell whether they have been complied with.
It does not appear that the First-tier Tribunal has power to 'remit' to the Secretary of State.
Decision and Remittal
1. This is an appeal by the Secretary of State. The respondent, whom I shall call "the claimant", is a national of Jamaica, born in December 1978. He came to the United Kingdom in 2002 as a visitor. He sought a year's further leave as a student, which was granted, expiring on 30 September 2003. He undertook only three months of the course. He then remained in the United Kingdom without leave.
38. The First-tier Tribunal's determination contains errors on points of law. I set it aside. I remit the case to the First-tier Tribunal under s.12(2) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcements Act 2007. I make no directions as to the constitution of the Tribunal, but I direct that the appellant's first ground of appeal be determined in accordance with this determination.
Impact of Iraq Conflict on Minorities 'Devastating and Irreversible'
Two United Nations human rights experts warned today that ethnic and religious minorities in Iraq are bearing the "devastating and irreversible" brunt of the conflict that has once again engulfed the country.
"I am gravely concerned about the physical safety of several minority groups in Iraq, including Christians, Shia – a minority in the North, Shabaks, Turkmen, Yazidis and others, who are being persecuted on the grounds of their religion and ethnicity," said the Special Rapporteur on minority issues, Rita Izsák, in a joint press release with the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of internally displaced persons, Chaloka Beyani.
"Reliable information indicates that religious minorities are being targeted and their members subjected to abductions, killings or the confiscation of their property by extremist groups," Ms. Izsák said.
The "Islamic State" (IS) and associated armed groups have taken control of several cities and regions in northern Iraq in recent weeks. They are accused of gross human rights violations, some of which may amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity, including targeting and killing civilians.
Read more: UN News, <> 25/07/14
Budhathoki (Reasons for Decisions)  UKUT 341 (IAC)
It is generally unnecessary and unhelpful for First-tier Tribunal judgments to rehearse every detail or issue raised in a case. This leads to judgments becoming overly long and confused and is not a proportionate approach to deciding cases. It is, however, necessary for judges to identify and resolve key conflicts in the evidence and explain in clear and brief terms their reasons, so that the parties can understand why they have won or lost.
1. This is an appeal by the Secretary of State for the Home Department against a decision of the Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Judge Eban determined and promulgated on 7 April 2014, whereby the judge found in favour of the appellant, Ganga Budhathoki, and held that the appellant fell within regulation 7(1)(c) of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 and the Secretary of State was wrong to refuse a residence card. The reasons for refusal are set out in a statutory letter of refusal and reasons for refusal, both dated 22 April 2013.
2. The appeal is brought by the Secretary of State on simple grounds based on a failure by the judge to give adequate reasons, in particular, a failure to give reasons in paragraphs 12 and 14 of the Determination, to which paragraphs we shall return.
3. Permission to appeal was granted on 15 May 2014 on the basis of an arguable failure to give reasons and a failure to consider whether the EEA sponsor in this case was a qualified person exercising treaty rights in the United Kingdom.
14. We are not for a moment suggesting that judgments have to set out the entire interstices of the evidence presented or analyse every nuance between the parties. Far from it. Indeed, we should make it clear that it is generally unnecessary, unhelpful and unhealthy for First-tier Tribunal judgments to seek to rehearse every detail or issue raised in the case. This leads to judgments becoming overly long and confused. Further, it is not a proportionate approach to deciding cases. It is, however, necessary for First-tier Tribunal judges to identify and resolve the key conflicts in the evidence and explain in clear and brief terms their reasons for preferring one case to the other so that the parties can understand why they have won or lost.
15. For those reasons we uphold the appeal, set aside the decision and remit the matter to the First-tier Tribunal for a fresh decision in the light of this judgment.